Not an oil-fired war

I know, I know... I'm stirring the pot again. But this is an excellent article!

Not an oil-fired war

H. Sterling Burnett

A number of politicians, media pundits and environmental special interest groups have claimed that if the United States goes to war with Iraq, it will be because President Bush is trying to gain control of that country's considerable oil reserves and infrastructure. Indeed, some people seem to believe that the only U.S. interest in the Middle East is to keep the Arab oil flowing.
The truth is that if the United States does go to war with Iraq, it won't be over oil. If oil were the primary concern of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, then war would be one of the last things the Bush administration would be considering.
A war in the Middle East will almost certainly disrupt world oil supplies, contributing to higher, wildly fluctuating prices. There is good reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will practice the same scorched-earth policy in Iraq's oil fields that he practiced in Kuwait during the Persian Gulf war. The fields would burn and the equipment and infrastructure would be severely damaged if not completely destroyed, putting it out of use for many years. In order to cause further chaos and divert U.S. resources, Iraq might even attempt to damage oil fields in neighboring countries. ~snipped~... Read the rest at the link above.

Well said, thanks Sasha! :clapping, crowd cheering:

Sasha,
I agree /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

Well...I sure hope that we aren't doing it for oil.
I guess we'll judge by deeds and not words, 'cause it surely does look like we're going to war.

I did hear of one speaker last weekend on TV saying "Why shouldn't we get the oil? We're the ones who are going to fight the war!". So...there's at least one person focused on the oil.

If it ever does turn out that we let some people profit from the blood of american dead, that will be a day of shame for sure.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

I feel compelled to point out the difference between
"for oil" and "influenced by oil." Subtle, yes. But to me it is obvious that our policy toward any nation in the region would be far different if there were no oil to consider. Completely discounting oil as a reason for certain actions and policies with the region is as ignorant as pretending that the war is ONLY for oil. This isn't a black or white issue. Lots of grey to consider.

If it were true altruism we would be backing a task force to take out Mugabe and his ilk. There is a dictator who has tortured his people for decades! Zimbabwe has no strategic economic importance to Mr Bush.
What is so crazy about this whole "war" is the billions of pounds that are being spent without our permission! This is more than the total third-world-debt to the West! Petrol prices here will sky rocket not just because of the increase in oil prices, but the massive taxes that will be levied to pay for this dratted war! If only we spent 0.1% of those billions on providing food to the starving, we would be seen as the heros instead of the warmongers.
I think the sooner we can rely less on fossil fuels for transport and be out of the grip of these massive oil companies, the planet will be a better place!
E-bikes and E-Cars, the way forward in our cities, charged up using sun and wind power. Bio fuel powered vehicles. (Our petrol station now sells bio diesel, made from used chip shop oil!)
Mr Hussein is an extremely wealthy individual, as is Mr Bin Laden, and thier financial clout is massive too!
Remember they can buy anything they want, including countries. I see that Mr Blair and Mr Bush are trying to do the same too, but with our hard-earned taxpayers money!

[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
I feel compelled to point out the difference between
"for oil" and "influenced by oil." Subtle, yes. But to me it is obvious that our policy toward any nation in the region would be far different if there were no oil to consider. Completely discounting oil as a reason for certain actions and policies with the region is as ignorant as pretending that the war is ONLY for oil. This isn't a black or white issue. Lots of grey to consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you somewhat but for a totally different reason. If there is any subtle influence it's the influence that's kept us from attacking up until now, not why we would attack.

Is there a chance alternative fuel proponents, environmentalist and others have an agenda and making oil the cause of problems in the world supports their agenda?

Once we stabilize Iraq I feel we should take enough oil to pay ourselves back for both wars but it will never happen. If we take oil for repayment we will once again be accused of the war being all about oil.

Dave - I'm afraid that you read more into my post than was there. It may surprise you to learn that your "totally" different reason is actually one of the reasons that I consider when I talk about the influence of oil on our policies. My point in that post is that the oil in the region effects our policies. (period) I avoided mentioning what those influences might be. My vocal choice of vehicles and desire for energy conservation probably catagorizes me with a group of folks who hold many viewpoints in contradiction to yours. I am my own person, and am rarely swayed by the group mentality of any one type of group.

I guess we all have our own agendas. Somebody else's "agenda" isn't a negative thing unless we don't happen to agree with it. I do happen to think that the world would be a better place if we weren't so dependent on oil. I don't believe that oil is the cause of all the worlds problems, and I don't believe we'll be going to war specifically for the oil in the area. But I suppose I do have an agenda of pointing out alternatives to importing and consuming oil. Energy independence (I'll call it "freedom" for short) is a powerful thing. We don't have it, and that's sad. Our economy is based on what we need from countries we'd rather not deal with.

Certainly there are those who would like to use this war as evidence to support their agendas. The same way that others use their agendas to support the war.

(you did notice my subtle spin on your sig text yes? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

This is a test of the Darell Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been a real emergency, I would have typed something relevant.

Darell-I'm afraid that you read more into my post than was there. I assumed incorrectly you thought it was subtly about oil. Reading some of your other post lead me down a road to a poor assumption, sorry.

My only agenda for war is my family's safety. If I had an ulterior agenda it would be to not go to war, it's expensive and many of my friends are over there.

I was simply pointing out there are groups who say "it's about oil" specifically to promote their agenda and may or may not have any evidence to support that claim. I asked you the question to see if you agreed because you seem more familiar with them. I didn't say it was you that felt that way (well I kinda did, but stand corrected) and I never said you or anyone else thought oil was the cause of ALL the worlds' problems.

I do agree we need alternative fuel sources and it would give us more energy "freedom". I may also agree with most of the viewpoints of your conservation group. I don't like paying big bucks for gas or the pollution it emits. I also want a 50MPG diesel/hybrid Suburban /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Copyright infringment on my sig line /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twak.gif

You're OK, Dave. No matter what the tree-huggers may think of you. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

(First-line-of-post plagarizing not withstanding)

Man... I love you guys... group hug...

Correct, the US has no interest in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is also not a perceived threat--but Iraq is. if Zimbabwe were a threat to us our our interests/allies, we would certainly step in. Perhaps your country would like to fix Zimbabwe?

Iraq is perceived as both a direct and indirect threat to the US and the middle east region--of which we have interests: allied nations and oil.

who ever said anything about altruism? our primary concern is our own safety. however, a side effect of a war would be to liberate Iraq, and give them a chance to flourish as a country. under Saddam's rule, they only know misery.

i certainly agree with all that we need to strive to become energy-independent!

Bob

Sorry Darell,
I had to steal something to feel remotely even.

How ya like my sig line now? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
How ya like my sig line now? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Too many qualifiers. Just stick with "Nut" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif OK, Changed it back. It felt to "fruits and nuts" for me anyway.

It is all about oil and money.

I think it's about what Iraq buys with its oil money.

[ QUOTE ]
DavidW said:
I think it's about what Iraq buys with its oil money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes SIR! See how bad I am at making points sometimes? This here is it. Oil may not be what we're after, but it certainly has lots to do with why we're going in there.

The man of few words speaks volumes once again.