Back before Gulf War II started, I often had arguments with some friends at school about the "reason" the US was going to war. It didn't occur to me then, but in retrospect it's terrifying that they got to get their war on without anyone having a clear idea of why, exactly, we were doing this.
One of the most annoying things people would say, though, was "Well, one thing's for certain: this war has nothing to do with oil." I actually has a friend say this to me, and I have to say I nearly slapped him.
If this wasn't at least partly about oil, then what they hell was it about? I mean, name any one of the many rationales given for this fight, and there's some state that fits the bill far better. Some (like Pakistan, for example) fit more than one. What the rest lack, of course, is oil or proximity to it.
And isn't saying "Saddam attacked his neighbours" still really about the oil? Do Americans actually care who runs Kuwait, Iran or Saudi Arabia, so long as the crude flows?
Well, anyway, one of those "better candidates" for a war just announced (in the least-surprising news ever) that they've got nukes. So rather than deal with a country that actually is a threat, 150,000 soldiers are tied down in Iraq (with probably another 50-100k supporting them around the middle east.) Brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment