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".
Of course not.......I made that conclusion. The article simply supports my position.
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.
What does it mean "in general".....does that mean some month reserves don't go up, other months they do? Its sounds like you are not convinced one way or the other.
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.
Exactly how rare is it? And how quickly is world wide demand creeping up? And who has most control over the price? These all questions about which a leader will be concerned.
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.
Kuwaiti and Saudi oil is mostly in good hands. Iraq's oil was not. That meant many things and could have created problems for us down the road. Please note....Bush and company were speculating and anticipating. As you well know, no one can predict the future.
It also wouldn't be as large of concern as the worry about what problems Iraq might cause in the region.
That's all part of it......after all, the Kuwaiti oil fields are right next door.
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.
That's the belief of honorable people. I am not sure that's what we have in the White House. But even if they are, oil is still on the agenda with this crowd IMO.
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.
No one said it had to be the only reason.
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".
Now you are overanalyzing the phrase. "Its all about the oil" means that's the prime motivating factor. The behavior of the Bush White House before and after war suggests that that statement to be true.
Look Bush namesd three axis of evil countries. Of the three, the one that was the most serious threat to America was N. Korea. NK has both nukes and missiles and a miserable, ruthless leader. Why didn't he go after long jim first?
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.
There is a growing demand for oil and a finite supply. That's all the argument that is needed for a nation that is heavily dependent on such a resource.
ted |
