> //snip > not to be inflamitory, but surely any argument that applies > to the Iraq > situation apart from oil applies more to South Korea? > //snip > > Was that not the biggest dodge I have ever seen. If you say > the oil argument holds water, prove it. I haven't seen any > valid arguments that prove oil is the reason for war.
At the very least the installment of a US friendly government in Iraq would allow oil to flow more freely here and LESS freely to our enemies. A releasing of UN sanctions would not present us with as favorable a situation. Such a government installment in Iraq would also better the US position with OPEC. It's unclear to me how much control OPEC has over IRAQ (or vice versa) while under sanctions but they must exert at least some. Oil is an issue, not the only issue to be sure, but it is a big one. So assume for a moment that the flow of oil is a large issue. You are correct that a reduction in sanctions would allow the flow to increase. However it can be argued (and I think that this administration would agree) that there are more "benefits" to actually going to war. I don't particularly agree with any of these reasons but have heard them all used: 1) First off, as I said, by ousting Saddam you've got a friendly voice in a position of oil control. You've also got a supposedly friendly voice in OPEC. 2) War is good for the economy (I believe only temporarily, but many believe that such a "jumpstart" is all we need) 3) War is extremely good for public presidential opinion. Especially war in the Middle East. Presidents never have higher approval ratings than when we're bombing a desert. 4) We have a largely military economy and that lobby is very powerful. Peaceful solutions simply don't have the clout. 5) Remember that OPEC sets limits on total oil export amounts for member nations. We might predict that Saddam, were he left in power would meet those limits and then augment his coffers by selling excess to unfriendly nations or groups. Such a black market trade is reported to exist now under sanctions. A new (U.S. friendly) leader would (supposedly) end tht practice. There are other reasons, but in the end if you agree that oil (the flow of oil specifically) is an issue then I think that you can also see where war could be seen a preferable to peaceful solutions to address it. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
