It’s All About The Oil – A Fictitious Conversation


This war is about oil just like the Gulf War.

Just because the Gulf War was primarily about oil doesn’t mean that every war is about oil. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, & the Korean War certainly weren’t about oil were they?

No they weren’t, but Bush and Cheney are oilmen, so this has to be about oil!

So if Bush and Cheney were both veterinarians would you think that we were invading Iraq to take all their pets? Or are you saying that only oilmen want to get rid of Hussein? If so, I can certainly put you in touch with a lot of people who aren’t Exxon executives and yet are strongly in favor of invading Iraq…

Oh veterinarians, ha, ha, that’s very funny. Don’t you find it odd that right after Sept. 11th we were only talking about al-Queda and Bin Laden and then suddenly out of the blue we were talking about Iraq months later?

Bush WAS talking about going after regimes that support terrorism right from the beginning. Here is a quote from the first big: speech: George W. Bush gave after 9/11…

“…And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

That certainly would apply to Iraq and Bush said it just nine days after 9/11. Therefore, Bush is being totally consistent by threatening to invade Iraq.

But why Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes! Iran is a bigger sponsor of terrorism and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why are we going to Iraq if not for oil?

Iraq is the biggest threat. Because of the Gulf War, the sanctions, and the no fly zones, Hussein has more of a grudge against us than any other nation. When you combine that with Hussein’s pursuit of nukes, his biological and chemical weapons, and the terrorists he supports who might be willing to act as a delivery system, it becomes obvious that Iraq is a unique danger to our country.

Furthermore, how many nations do you think would be with us if we announced that we were going to war with Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia right now? Almost none, right? On the other hand, we’re going to get extensive support for attacking Iraq whether the UN goes along with us or not. Moreover, once we’re in Iraq, we can roll tanks right up to the border of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia if they can’t be forced to stop supporting terrorism diplomatically. Strategically, Iraq is the next logical target in the War on Terrorism.

Strategically? The Bush clan just wants to control Iraq’s oil fields!

What does “control Iraq’s oil fields” mean exactly? What will probably happen is that US companies will come in and help develop the oil fields…

SEE? SEE? Developing those oil fields is worth: 40 billion: dollars! This is all about making George Bush’s oil buddies rich!

Let me see if I follow your logic here. We’re going to spend at least: 50-100 billion dollars: invading Iraq so that American oil companies will get the lion’s share of 40 billion dollars worth of oil contracts? That in and of itself doesn’t make any sense and that’s before we even take into account the negative effect that the possibility of war has had on the stock market and the likely long-term drop in price that increasing Iraqi oil production would cause. Lower oil prices means lower profits for oil companies.

Ha, you slipped up! You said invading Iraq would cause a “long-term drop in price.” Cheap oil is good for the American economy!

Theoretically, it might be “good for the American economy” if we killed everyone in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Libya and just took all their oil as well but I don’t hear anyone suggesting that. Being able to export goods to South Korea, Germany, and Japan is certainly “good for the American economy” as well but that doesn’t mean we got into WW2 or the Korean War for economic reasons…or do you think WW2 and the Korean War were all about the economy? Are you suggesting that we invaded Japan during WW2 so we could get a source of cheap electronics down the road or….

NO! I’m not suggesting that! Let’s just move on…to Bush’s attempt to take control of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves!

Now we’re back to that “control” thing…

Ok, forget the word “control”. Bush wants a friendly regime in charge of the nation with the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves…

We’d like friendly regimes everywhere, why is the fact that Iraq has the world’s 2nd largest supposed to be important?

Because Iraq will probably still be pumping oil when almost every other nation has run out…

That might be a decent argument if there were any sort of extreme oil shortage, but most estimates I’ve seen suggest that we have somewhere between 40 to 95 years worth of oil left. Furthermore, we’ll actually never run out of oil. That’s because as oil gets more expensive and scarce, alternative energy sources will become more attractive. As Sheik Yamani said, “The oil age will come to an end, but not for lack of oil, just like the Stone Age came to an end, but not for lack of stone.”

Also, what makes you think we’re even going to have a friendly regime in Iraq long-term? Relationships between nations change all the time. Think about the relationship the US had with Iran in the seventies, Iraq in the eighties, with the Russians in the eighties, Saudi Arabia before 9/11, Afghanistan before 9/11, etc, and compare those relationships to how things are today. To claim that we’re invading Iraq so we may have access to their oil supply 40 years in the future seems ludicrous when you look at it in that light.

You know what I think? I think…

Actually, it would be nice if you and the rest of the people claiming that it’s “all about the oil” were “thinking” instead of spouting off this ridiculous nonsense. But since you’re not thinking, let me do a little thinking for you. I think admitting that Hussein is dangerous and needs to be stopped must be a little too “real” for you. Maybe you’re just reflexively opposed to America using it’s military to protect itself, maybe you think the US “deserves” whatever happens to it, or who knows, maybe you just want to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and hope the whole problem goes away somehow. But you don’t have the courage to be that honest.

So instead, the rest of us have to listen to mealy mouthed people bleating “it’s all about the oil.” See, then instead of talking about the real danger that’s confronting us, you can simply claim you’re taking the “high ground” because you don’t like Bush’s “motives.” Better yet, if you keep scribbling “it’s all about the oil” enough times, you can get a certain percentage of ignorant people who don’t know any better to go along with you. That wouldn’t happen if you told the truth, if you said something like, “I just want things to go back to the way they were before 9/11 so I don’t have to think about this stuff anymore” or even, “the war will hurt the Democrats politically so I want it to end as quickly as possible.” In the end, people crying, “it’s all about the oil” would rather be in the company of the intellectually dishonest and the ignorant than face the situation we’re in head on. It’s not all about the oil, it’s all about dealing with the real world. It’s too bad that not all of us have the will to do it.

Related Articles

4

Rand Paul Is Right. Social Conservatives Should Embrace Libertarianism

These days, to even suggest the possibility that a fiscally conservative economic outlook is compatible with faith is a matter

0

The Mainstream Media’s Coverage Of Romney On Libya: American Pravda

When the Evil Empire was up and running, Americans used to have a good laugh at Pravda. How in the

1

Civilization in reverse

In Greek mythology, the prophetess Cassandra was doomed both to tell the truth and to be ignored. Our modern version