Indirectly it does.
Maybe "partially it does". It makes an argument that if accepted could give you one premise that could be used in a second argument that would actually try to make the case that invading Iraq was all about oil, however it never actually makes that second argument or develops any other premises for it. Thus even if you accept the article without hesitation or qualification you still are left with one point, and that point is not that "its all about oil".
Now you have taken that one point and finally actually made an argument based on it -
oil and gas have become rarer and rarer commodities on the planet. No one knows when alternative fuel will be more than just a buzz word. Therefore, you want as many friendly oil nations on the planet as possible, producing as much oil as possible.
The Iraqi oil industry was becoming less and less productive under Saddam; it was time for him to go. We didn't do Iraq for the Iraqi people.....that was a side product......we did it for ourselves.
My response -
Oil and gas aren't really becoming rare yet, in fact proven reserves have in general been going up not down. Sure it is rarer, because there is a finite amount of oil and apparently oil creation occurs only at such a slow rate that we can discount it as a factor, but it is not rare and may not be for some time, quite likely after Saddam would have died even if he lived/lives to a ripe old age and dies of natural causes.
Of course oil is still a useful, and at least in quantities the US uses expensive, product and increasing Iraqi oil production is in the US's interests, but not to the extent that such a desire is likely to be higher then the interest in safeguarding Kuwaiti and Saudi oil production. It also wouldn't be as large of concern as the worry about what problems Iraq might cause in the region. It also would not be a large enough factor in the minds of many to be as important as the benefits for the Iraqi people, or the possible benefits for the region and indirectly to the world that the example of a democratic Iraq could cause. Then there are less positive possible reasons that still would not be "all about oil" such as personal animosity between the Bush and Hussein families, or the thought that a war might help Bush's political prospects. I don't think any of those are major factors, but a number of anti-Bush people would claim they are. So even if you exclude all reasons that reflect well on Bush (and there is no rational reason to do so), you still would not be left with nothing but "its all about (Iraqi) oil".
You go further then the article in that you lay out a reason why Iraqi oil could be a factor, but you fail to show that it was the only major factor or even an important one.
Tim |
